The Boss has passed.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I dont disagree with your premise for the most part but you choose some examples that defeat your point. The Twins won the world series in 1991. When was the last time the Vikes won a championship? The Marlins, although being an existence for less than 20 years, have won two titles in that time. How many have the dolphins won in that time?

The Twins have been in the playoffs consistently over the last decade. How about the vikes? As you know, the dolphins have not been very good while the marlins occasionally field a strong team or at least strong enough to win two titles since 1997.

The competitive balance portion of what you say is true for the most part but is that really the big reason why baseball isnt the number 1 sport any longer as you imply in your post?

It is easier to share money in the NFL because there is much more money to share. TV dollars for baseball arent there and the competitive balance isnt going to make much difference.

You are missing the point. If you start from scratch in those markets which team has a better chance at winning? The NFL teams do because if you do your homework, draft good players, work the cap, hire top coaches and get a little lucky with injuries your team can compete for the title regardless of where you are located. In baseball that simply isnt true. In Pittsburgh or Kansas City you can do all of the above and yet not have a chance to be anymore than a one or two year fringe playoff contender. The same franchises in the NFL can be perennial contenders.

The money is easier to share in football because there is very little local broadcasting (preseason only) which is where the inequity exsts. I am not saying that the Yankees should send the Pirates money from those broadcasts. But the current system in which the yankees simply pay a luxury tax isn't much of a detriment becuase of the huge tv and radio revenues they accumulate.

The system that baseball currently has causes too many teams to always be seller which in turn leads to more and more unwatchable games and dead fan bases. Tampa is a great example of what happens. Of course there are alot of factors that effect things there (bad stadium in poor location, prior poor ownership/management) but the fact that the team was unwatchable for many years is being felt in the apthy towards the team which is really good. Add in that they will have a hard time holding onto the young stars that have made them a playoff team and you have a situation that stinks. But how can you blame fans for not wanting to get attached to a player or team? A few years ago Cleveland beat the yankees in the playoffs and what do ya know their best pitcher winds up playing for who? While the Indians are unable to keep the core parts and have to rebuild.

look at the wins
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

You are missing the point. If you start from scratch in those markets which team has a better chance at winning? The NFL teams do because if you do your homework, draft good players, work the cap, hire top coaches and get a little lucky with injuries your team can compete for the title regardless of where you are located. In baseball that simply isnt true. In Pittsburgh or Kansas City you can do all of the above and yet not have a chance to be anymore than a one or two year fringe playoff contender. The same franchises in the NFL can be perennial contenders.

The money is easier to share in football because there is very little local broadcasting (preseason only) which is where the inequity exsts. I am not saying that the Yankees should send the Pirates money from those broadcasts. But the current system in which the yankees simply pay a luxury tax isn't much of a detriment becuase of the huge tv and radio revenues they accumulate.

The system that baseball currently has causes too many teams to always be seller which in turn leads to more and more unwatchable games and dead fan bases. Tampa is a great example of what happens. Of course there are alot of factors that effect things there (bad stadium in poor location, prior poor ownership/management) but the fact that the team was unwatchable for many years is being felt in the apthy towards the team which is really good. Add in that they will have a hard time holding onto the young stars that have made them a playoff team and you have a situation that stinks. But how can you blame fans for not wanting to get attached to a player or team? A few years ago Cleveland beat the yankees in the playoffs and what do ya know their best pitcher winds up playing for who? While the Indians are unable to keep the core parts and have to rebuild.

look at the wins
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL/
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/NL/

I am not missing the point. You are simply changing your point. You said that when George took over in 1973, baseball was the number one sport and he was one of the primary reasons why that is no longer the case. I say TV is the Primary reason why that is the case and blaming George doesnt make a whole lot of sense.

I don't dispute much of what you say in this thread. I simply contend that baseball's TV entertainment product is nowhere close to the NFL's. That has little to do with competitive balance.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

I am not missing the point. You are simply changing your point. You said that when George took over in 1973, baseball was the number one sport and he was one of the primary reasons why that is no longer the case. I say TV is the Primary reason why that is the case and blaming George doesnt make a whole lot of sense.

I don't dispute much of what you say in this thread. I simply contend that baseball's TV entertainment product is nowhere close to the NFL's. That has little to do with competitive balance.

I didnt change my point. That the competitive balance in baseball has been an issue in its losing popularity and that george played a large part in that.

Again the context in which I answered a particular post from Gales is missing. He wants to act as though baseball would have been in such terrible shape without Georges arrival on the scene. That isnt true and his lasting legacy will be the continuing inequity in payrolls in baseball. TV has nothing to do with what we were discussing which was George's legacy and has little to do with baseball's demise.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

I didnt change my point. That the competitive balance in baseball has been an issue in its losing popularity and that george played a large part in that.

Again the context in which I answered a particular post from Gales is missing. He wants to act as though baseball would have been in such terrible shape without Georges arrival on the scene. That isnt true and his lasting legacy will be the continuing inequity in payrolls in baseball. TV has nothing to do with what we were discussing which was George's legacy and has little to do with baseball's demise.

Just so I understand, are you saying that TV did or didn't help football surpass baseball as the number 1 sport in the US?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

Just so I understand, are you saying that TV did or didn't help football surpass baseball as the number 1 sport in the US?

Why must you try to draw a line everywhere and make things black or white or put words in my mouth? Your inference that tv was the driving force behind football becoming more popular is such a broad statement that it cant possible be answered any other way than yes. But TV doesnt turn itself on and make you watch it.

[dalakhani]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Why must you try to draw a line everywhere and make things black or white or put words in my mouth? Your inference that tv was the driving force behind football becoming more popular is such a broad statement that it cant possible be answered any other way than yes. But TV doesnt turn itself on and make you watch it.

It indeed can be answered with a yes or no. Was TV a "driving force" behind football becoming a more popular sport than baseball?

Why dance? Its a simple question regardless of how "broad" it may be.

Its as simple as saying that digital cable/satellite is a driving force in the destruction of the movie rental business.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by dalakhani

It indeed can be answered with a yes or no. Was TV a "driving force" behind football becoming a more popular sport than baseball?

Why dance? Its a simple question regardless of how "broad" it may be.

Its as simple as saying that digital cable/satellite is a driving force in the destruction of the movie rental business.

No it is far more nebulous than that. But you know that.

Here is a third party's take.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...ort-in-america

The vision was that the more popular the entire league became, the more financially beneficial it would be for everyone.
The wisdom and foresight of this vision has led the NFL to unprecedented popularity and success.
So, why is the NFL so popular and successful?

The reason is due to the complete parity in the league.

Unlike most professional sports today, no matter where you live in the country, your team has an equal chance of winning the Super Bowl—this has caused the game to grow in popularity throughout every corner of the country, not just in New York, Boston, Chicago and Los Angeles

The parity seen in the NFL today can be attributed to two main principles: equal revenue sharing and a salary cap.